This post finishes up the discussion on standards of review — how much deference the appellate courts pay to the rulings being appealed. Earlier posts discussed de novo review for questions of law, the any evidence review of factual findings in actions at law, the preponderance review for factual findings in actions in equity, and the abuse of discretion review for most pre-trial and trial rulings.

The posts on standards of review have covered the difference between questions of law and issues of fact, and between actions that are tried at law and in equity. This post explains the standards of review for certain pre-trial and trial rulings. Continue reading →

A recent post covered the South Carolina courts’ differing standards of review for a trial judge’s legal conclusions and the fact-finder’s findings of fact. The universe of factual findings further breaks down into two more categories. Continue reading →